Wikipedia talk:Check your facts

Supporters of this rule include: Larry Sanger, Damian Yerrick, tbc, Taw, LDC, webkid (Generally speaking, checking in books is better than cheking in Internet), and Hyacinth

Opponents include: Satan, The Cunctator, and 24 (only check what you yourself doubt--not what you don't. If you don't doubt it, you won't remember to check it in the first place ;-0)

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles
At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 20:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh?
What the *hell* does this mean?

"You should write that P only if it is true that P; contraposing, if it is not true that P, you should not write that P."


 * I concur. Someone that doesn't know to check their facts isn't going to be enlightened by this "logic".  Protect our newbies from this.  Consolidate!  -- A D Monroe III 22:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/RFC
An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in  subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at Requests for arbitration/RFC and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)